Outright Ban On Anything Wood In Utah! Pellets/Cord Wood/Fireplaces

[DougA]

In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.

Correct but they won't do anything to restrict pollution from vehicles or industry so wood stoves are a natural target. That's the way gov't thinks. You elect them to do what is NOT right.
I'm from Ontario and we're experts at electing people who do what we don't want.

 

[bsruther]

Not banned, but more like what we have here, indexed to the degree of pollution. Stage 1 locally means EPA 2 and pellet stoves only, no fireplace, pre-EPA stoves, or open burning. Stage 2 means no burning at all unless it is the sole source of heat. If there is no inversion and a good system is blowing through, why should any stove be banned? To encourage clean burning they could penalize the worst offenders if necessary based on the length of time and opacity of smoke. It also appears they might consider adopting CA standards for their cars if this is a major contributor to their air pollution. More aggressive filtration on the rest of local industry would also help. Again, this is hypothetical. The only information I have on their problem has come through this thread.

Thanks for your answer.

Glad we don't have a stove gestapo watching our chimneys. I can envision a guy standing in front of a house with a smoke opacity meter pointing it at the chimney. You FAIL! No fire for you.

 

[BradleyW]

I lived in Utah for 10 years. Those inversions suck. Such a beautiful place otherwise.
Unfortunately they tend not to use much common sense in the Utah legislature. They also tend not to want there to be any real government agencies with power to enforce regulations, and they certainly don't want any government handouts like a change-out program.
If it weren't for the Massachusetts change-out program I would still be using a stove too small or my house and a smoke dragon to supplement it when needed.

 

[Kevin Dolan]

They have excellent brews well above 3.2. I found that out last spring.

View attachment 148271 View attachment 148272

Looks very tasty and low alcohol content.
Wonder when cremation will be banned for polluting the atmosphere.

 

[F4jock]

Looks very tasty and low alcohol content.
Wonder when cremation will be banned for polluting the atmosphere.

Just before breathing.

 

[tarzan]

Just before breathing.

I don't see it that way at all. I think the ban on breathing would lead to an influx of cremations subsequently leading to the cremation ban.

 

[Highbeam]

In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.

This is really the important part. If we only learn one thing it is this. As wood burners we are an easy target, a minority. We can never defend ourselves from a gang of bullies stealing our lunch money.

Would they shut down industry? No, that's jobs and taxes for votes and revenue, cutting their own throat. Everybody has to drive so the majority of folks would be impacted by driving restrictions and that's votes. Wood burning? Sure, why not? It looks like they're doing something with very little downside.

 

[BrotherBart]

They actually admitted every one of your points in an article and interviews last February.

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/fea...hing-ban-on-woodburning-stoves-and-fireplaces

 

[begreen]

Gov Herbert seems to like simple minded solutions to a complex problem. A $3000 grant to replace the stove with propane or NG is flawed. Most NG installs cost a lot more than $3K if there isn't a line already to the house. And propane is expensive.
"Most days, even in the winter, there is a lot of air movement along the Wasatch Front, Niederhauser added.
“And we don’t have inversions on those days.”
That backs up my thought to restrict wood burning in a 2 or 3 tiered manor depending on the severity of the inversion. They might also enforce driving restrictions during that period, perhaps based on even/odd license plate numbers. In the meantime adopt CA tier 3 auto emissions standards and 2 stroke motor regs. It's amazing that they are "waiting for technology" that already exists in a neighboring state.

 

[branchburner]

we are an easy target, a minority. We can never defend ourselves from a gang of bullies

Seems to be the way of politics in this country: under political pressure to "do something" politicians do anything, even if it does not solve the problem at hand, so long as the "solution" is quick, easy and cheap and it does not cost the politicians too much in terms of votes or campaign money.

If I was fighting this proposal I would urge people to do the math: even if ALL burning actually stopped (and nobody broke any laws) the best-case scenario is that the subsequent inversions are still 95% as bad as they used to be.

So if you had a flooded basement, this "solution" would be akin to a fix that left you 19 inches of water in the cellar rather than 20 inches. Or if you were trying to solve the problem of too much snow on a roof, it would be 57 inches deep instead of 60 inches. How much would a consumer pay for these "solutions?"

I don't have respiratory problems, but I can't imagine I would suffer that much less if I was stuck in a bus which had only 19 people smoking cigarettes instead of 20 people. It would never strike me as a "solution" to have the driver throw the smallest, weakest smoker off the bus, just because that guy can't fight back. For all practical purposes, the problem remains unaddressed.

 

[begreen]

Politics is often about dealing with a superficial high visibility target, while letting the real and often tougher problems fester and get worse.

 

[newatthis]

Who is the special interest group behind this?

This is the State's reaction to not having reached attainment and filing a SIP (state implementation program) with EPA.

Here in Virginia we don't seem to have the air quality problems you have in Utah, but we do have dumb-ass politicians taking bribes from any special interest group that will hand them out, and making decisions accordingly. It doesn't take much money- we elect cheap whores (although our recent Governor required high-end gifts for all his kids, including wedding catering). The local power company, Dominion, has fought hard against renewable energy, even though they benefit from net-metering just like homeowners. So, not knowing the situation in Utah, I can only speculate, but I suspect it's the same short-sighted, half-assed leadership we see here.

 

[tarzan]

In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.

What's the other 24% from?

 

[BrotherBart]

Probably lawn mowers and cow farts.

 

[F4jock]

I don't see it that way at all. I think the ban on breathing would lead to an influx of cremations subsequently leading to the cremation ban.

Nah. We all do it together thus no cremations and we benefit all of the animals that will have us for munchies and we'll fertilize all the flora. It's an environmentalist"s dream!

 

[Highbeam]

I don't have respiratory problems, but I can't imagine I would suffer that much less if I was stuck in a bus which had only 19 people smoking cigarettes instead of 20 people. It would never strike me as a "solution" to have the driver throw the smallest, weakest smoker off the bus, just because that guy can't fight back. For all practical purposes, the problem remains unaddressed.

Great post bud.

Really, I am pretty surprised that wood smoke is only 5% of the problem. Our clean air retards claim that wood burning makes up a much larger percentage.

 

[F4jock]

Great post bud.

Really, I am pretty surprised that wood smoke is only 5% of the problem. Our clean air retards claim that wood burning makes up a much larger percentage.

Probably because they want to save trees.

 

[begreen]

Maybe because there are a higher percentage of wood burners here in WA.

Interesting fact, out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA. EPA stoves only make up 1 million or 10%. The other interesting demographic is that the majority of installations of wood heat stoves appears to be in mobile homes. Demographically the majority of owners are over 65.

 

[tarzan]

Maybe because there are a higher percentage of wood burners here.

Interesting fact, out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA. EPA stoves only make up 1 million or 10%.

That's, in large part, in the U.S. anyhow, because more must be done toward educating wood burners. This place is great but what percentage of the 9.3 million ever find there way here?

I've suggested before, a MM should come with every new stove to help drive home the point beyond just what's in the owners manual used to start the first fire.

I'm sure there could be more beyond that we can do, just a suggestion.

Imagine if those numbers were reversed I your situation or even in the Wasatch Front. Speciation but I wonder if we would even be having this conversation.

 

[begreen]

According to US census numbers the majority of wood burners are over 65 living in mobiles. It's a stretch to assume they even use the internet. And I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those installed were pre-EPA. I see this type of install right in our rural neighborhood and all around the state. Many without even a class A chimney.

 

[tarzan]

According to US census numbers the majority of wood burners are over 65 living in mobiles. It's a stretch to assume they even use the internet. And I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those installed were pre-EPA. I see this type of install right in our rural neighborhood and all around the state. Many without even a class A chimney.

So 10 years, problem solved! Lol

There are many wood burners in my area, many under 65 but I also live in a poverty stricken area. The biggest problems I see are folks avoiding EPA stoves like the plaque because there brothers wife's cousin had one and he could never get it to burn.

From some posts here from people all over, I get the feeling that goes on in many other locations.

 

[branchburner]

out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA.

That about lines up with my experience with friends, neighbors and co-workers... I am always slightly shocked when I bump into that 1 in 10 that has an EPA stove, and can actually converse about secondary combustion.

The fact that newer stoves employ efficient, clean combustion technology has to be one of the best kept secrets in this country. Policymakers rarely understand this, and even if they do, the voting constituencies remain largely in the dark. They mostly all think a stove is a stove is a stove. Even woodburners think that!

If voters and politicians all understood the vast differential in emissions from EPA stoves vs. fireplaces and smoke dragons, let alone open burning, these blanket-bans would never fly.

If wood smoke is only 5% of the problem here, and 90% of stoves are pre-EPA, and those pre-EPA stoves emit far more particulates per stove, even a child can see that virtually NO effective pollution arises from the use of modern stoves... only a tiny fraction of a percent. Far from being the problem, EPA stoves are THE SOLUTION.

Why on earth would policymakers want to ban the solution? They should be doing all they can to promote it. I hate advocating for ANY tax, but maybe greater tax credits for EPA stoves could be funded by a tax on open fireplaces in new construction... at least that would be a far more progressive tax than most. As it stands, a ban on wood stoves has all the weight of a regressive tax, with poorest folks bearing the financial burden of the change.

 

[begreen]

Yes, short chimneys with lots of elbows to take the single-wall out through the window don't mix well with wood split yesterday.

 

[begreen]

If wood smoke is only 5% of the problem here, and 90% of stoves are pre-EPA, and those pre-EPA stoves emit far more particulates per stove, even a child can see that virtually NO effective pollution arises from the use of modern stoves... only a tiny fraction of a percent. Far from being the problem, EPA stoves are THE SOLUTION.

Why on earth would policymakers want to ban the solution? They should be doing all they can to promote it. I hate advocating for ANY tax, but maybe greater tax credits for EPA stoves could be funded by a tax on open fireplaces in new construction... at least that would be a far more progressive tax than most. As it stands, a ban on wood stoves has all the weight of a regressive tax, with poorest folks bearing the financial burden of the change.

The problem is that the Utah numbers are generalized. Woodsmoke, especially PPM 2.5 is much worse than 5% according to WA State DoE. They have been doing much better tracking and data keeping for the past couple decades. Note that WA state has a much higher percentage of certified stoves due to legislation passed in the 90s.

 

[tarzan]

Yes, short chimneys with lots of elbows to take the single-wall out through the window don't mix well with wood split yesterday.

Funny/sad but unfortunately true.